Building Arguments: From Hot Cross Buns to Bolero

Hot Cross Buns! Hot Cross Buns!

Previously I blogged about the stages in attempting to learn a lot of information in a given subject  The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge; in this case on the EU, Brexit and hence Referendum. Part of the problem is a systemic defect in our National Lack of Conversation Competencies (or "Scaled Communication Dehabilitation" to be correct or give it a name) or what substitutes for it: Dêmos + Kratos = A Community That Communicates Productively. The stages if I remember correctly, and this seems to apply to learning a lot of different subjects, are:-

1. Logistical (input)
2. Semantic (processing)
3. Ordering (output)
4. Memory (information)
5. Application (knowledge)

Ravel's Bolero

Above, I've included one of my favourite classical music pieces, Ravel's Bolero. It helps remind me of those above 1-5 stages when I become bogged down in any of 1-4 and feel lost! I don't know enough about music to comment technically but I do know that from the smallest units put together according to an intended design and applied you create this growing pattern of music that is enjoyable to listen to: A growing pattern in the Bolero above which reinforces the idea for me. The same can be said in comparison with other areas, possibly?:-

• Music: Notes are the units
• Writing: Words are the units
• Programming: Code are the units
• Film-making: Frames are the units 
• Art: Colours are the units??

Hot-Cross Buns: "2 a penny, 3 a penny... hot - cross - buns!"

If you look at the above, it has to have the right notes to go with the words to make the right sound or music. It feels right when we get it right. Likewise, when we perhaps don't then it feels harsh or dischordant. I think this a bit like when we hear or know a lie has been spoken according to our own pattern of meaning that we are sure is true?

EU Referendum: them laws 

 Oh JHC: Not ANOTHER angels dancing on pins law percentages to the nearest decimal place debacle? FFS - !!! Pills, gun, rope - check, check, CHECK!

Surely the laws might be the fundamental "units" that describe our political Sovereignty? So these arcane discussions are actually very applicable?

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 3.2 Public Information, p.36

"The reality, of course, is that regulation is a mechanism by which integration is achieved, employing what is known as the Monnet method. This, Jean  Monnet  devised  after  the  near  failure  of  the  project on  30  August  1954, when the French Parliament rejected the European Political Community and the first European Constitution.

It  was  then that  Monnet  realised  that  his  United  States  of  Europe could  not  be created   openly,   whence   he   came   up   with   the   idea   of   using   progressive economic integration as a Trojan horse. The resultant drip-drip process became known as engrenage – loosely translated as "salami slicing", using harmonising regulations  to  bring   the  economic  activities  of  the  member  states  closer together." 

This was covered in Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? and even visualized in comparison to Antikythera Mechanism. We don't need to get bogged down in competing camps out-bidding each other in their attempts to tell the biggest lies: Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money.

Nick Clegg the five big fat lies being perpetuated by brexit's Project Fib

 "The Pied Politiciars": Liars lied lies, lying about liars, calling liars liars.

I've been wondering about the current campaign. There's too much senseless data. Not only that but the input of the data becomes the argument: It becomes questionable and questioned endlessly: Because often it's Bullshit behaviour by the people pushing it. To me this seems a bit like people talking about the musical note somewhere in Ravel's Bolero and saying how there's more notes in some other music, "Gungs And Roses" (?) and not the total experience they derive from listening to it's repeating pattern actually played and hence referred to as a complete and full work. What is the point of holding an exam if the students are allowed to cheat while taking it? What is the point of allowing people to sit on TV or write their newspaper pieces or go on the radio or internet and communicate garbage data and become embroiled in it? What use is that to people listening and watching?

My opinion is this:-

"There's enormous complexity in creating something like the Bolero. But to enjoy and listen to it is a very very simple thing."

I tend to think this whole subject is a bit like this. People will vote according to "gut-feeling" despite the "Babel-17" that's emitted endlessly and so stupidly in such prodigious volume. If you compare Bolero to "Babel-17" as I am nicknaming it from the sci-fi book, the former allows an ordering of thoughts, the latter an unravelling (no pun intended!) of thoughts.

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

 Most of what is said, is "bits of data" that may often be erroneous too. In this communication system: The "bigger" the bit of data the "bigger the argument" supposedly = Genesis of Große Lüge which in turn leads to a new language: "Babel-17" spoken by politicians and journalists

This idea of taking this data, and processing it into structured information to then apply to different knowledge sets to complete knowledge domains (legislation in this blog's own subject today) with which to THEN argue productively for people to listen to the patterns thus ordered and made:-

Building Arguments: Arranging according to higher patterns of Knowledge:-

 Too much unproductive attention at the faulty "data" production stage leads to lying politicians. "Information #1" is an illustration of information becoming useful when contextualized correctly. Then itself merely being "x1 byte" of information in our full higher arguments which are accessible to people to follow the sense and meaning of = Real Democracy In Action.

Fortunately there are people who are dependable when it comes down to the Data component. Lawyers tend to look for interpretation in the "units" or legal jargon and tend to therefore get bogged down in the information stage and hence are rarely it seems from my own experience at all helpful! Thanks lawyers but then they would not be lawyers would they?!

So the method of processing is a separate discussion, critical but we can depend I think on Dr. RAE North's method of processing

"As far as I can ascertain, this law is all currently in force (even if some of it no longer applies, which is a different thing). So, with all the usual caveats, it can be set against EU law currently in force. This (as of yesterday) stands at 19,389 entries. That puts EU law as a proportion of UK law at almost exactly 19 percent.

This is very much a "quick and dirty" figure, as it includes EU regulations and decisions which have direct effect, as well as instruments which have been transposed into UK law. The big problem, as we pointed out and which was raised by Booker, is that so much EU law no longer originates in Brussels. Increasingly the law comes from global and regional bodies.

On that basis, the figure (any figure) is of very little importance – even without dealing with the many other variables. But it does put Mr Johnson and the other pundits back in the box. If you want to quote a figure, round it up to "about 20 percent". It don't mean nuffink, but at least it has something of a plausible base."

to provide purely descriptive statistics that we can then fit into the above Legislation Sets per category of the Legislation Domain as it applies to our Referendum Question:-

Summarizing the information allows the context and sense-making to create a meaningful dicussion which voters can follow and appreciate. Linear strings of words in binary biff-bam contexts helps no one besides the shitty over-paid politicians

I started with Dr. RAE North's EU Referendum: them laws and EU law: definitive stupidity most recent (and is it ironic?) figures of information as a very basic baseline: All this information tells us is that we get a good deal of legislation from the EU. It's useful to state that simply.

However, what I've done is contextualize legislation via categories, repeating one "byte" of information in 2 categories for example where it applies to both. Where further context is needed I've used magenta to suggest these "bytes" of information are not equal in weight but highly significant to emphasis. Where the "bytes" are in blue, they're individually not particularly significant, but collectively they all add up to produce significant weight, they all support each other for a Like-Vs-Like comparision between EU/EEA vs EFTA/EEA Legislation Comparison. This is a building block to the bigger arguments of globalization of legislation especially in the UK's areas of interest: The Single Market. Now looking at the area that bothers the UK: The Political Ever Closer Union, this is for me the most signficant result:-

It's the source of breakdown of communication and national-decision making competence. Fundamentally it does not matter where or how the legislation is made if whatever the technical matrix of legislation may or may not be it's effect on our own people who are responsible for the rules is to lead them to wilfully deceptive politics: It is a cancer on our decision-making and knowledge development capabilities as a functional and thriving nation.

This final assertion, I would posit as above "knowledge" and as we explored previously determine it to be "wisdom" (the technical derivation of the word, not the mystical), as per Cicero above. And it's a really simply point to understand: Just as with Ravel's Bolero, I can't read music nor can I play music, but I can listen to Ravel's Bolero and understand it's pattern.

I look at the EU's "pattern" and I don't like it; I don't like the other twin fact to this that is to ostracize and reject counter-arguments of high quality, such as, when I look at the alternative, FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and it is like Ravel's Bolero, intellectually - it's quite addictive if deeply complicated!

Now when we get politicians and journalists on TV, you're not helping people understand this subject blathering about details of bits of data! If you start unpicking that stuff when you're supposed to get it right then argue the informative arguments towards knowledge systems for people to use, you'll never reach that productive elevation; trapped in arcane bs. Yes they need to be done be experts under a sense-making methodology - so - make use of such experts - not charlatans. The rest is comparatively simple if a mug like me can do...

As above, all those "bytes" of information can be used to form arguments. The arguments from my viewing purely of the legislation tell me that the UK is interested in the Single Market to connect to Globalization (see Appendix of FLEXCIT for the dozens and dozens of Global Bodies) and to remove the Political Union. It does not tell me "HOW" alone, but we already know this from FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

BRITAIN AND EUROPE 1914 and 2014 - A FUTURUS Special by Anthony Scholefield ~ Director, FUTURUS

Futurus: Adding Context, Adding Perspective, Adding Depth of Understanding

CONCLUSIONS:-

 1) Operational Fixes to EU Membership are Deceptive

The key point is the arguments are put to useful service: We do have a problem operationally which The Serial Liar David Cameron  and the whole nations knows but they do not use information beyond superficial and deceptive pretence as resolving such problems.

•  Sod Off Boris
• Boris the Bumbler – a man without a plan
• What Does In Look Like?
• Self-Loathing Politicians
• Give the Brexit bullshit a rest!

 2) Brexit is a Tactical Solution to Change Direction (temporily)

We may need a tactical solution to reorientate.

 3) Our Positive Future Vision is a Strategic Knowledge-driven decision-making

WHY LEAVING THE EU IS NECESSARY AND, IN THE LONG-TERM, INEVITABLE

What then is the outcome of that solution strategically, the destination set? This is where a Referendum is possibly a much more positive and productive process than the flailing politicians stuck at their lower level of priorities and hence continuance of short-termism and hence future failure: Futurus is very helpful here; it helps create a complete pattern from history.

The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge

Rare Pearls are not found on the shore but in the depths of the ocean.

I was curious what the latest EU opinions discussed in the public forum might sound like, so watched the BBC's Question Time 3rd March 2016, last night. There were it seemed a little more actually serious questions about the EU this time around, in particular one about Democracy which unfortunately the presenter David Dimblebee decided did not have enough of a "discussion hook" in it to dwell on and moved onto taking more questions, understandably.

But this is a serious problem that is not recognized for what it is: FLEXCIT: Changing the Political Reality. Like seeing a clam shell and not knowing that inside it is a Pearl. Another notable comment was from the audience (most of the interesting things actually come from the crowd given enough of a chance to sample a large number and sift the productive ideas from the rest):-

"We Don't Know Enough?" 

In a previous blog this was pointed out back in other BBC productions on the question of the EURO or Europe: Decrypting: What is Babel-17? Interestingly, there was an extremely emotional lady who was aghast at the suffering of migrants in tents that took up a lot of time and due to the heightened emotional pitch even when the correct procedure provided by Dominic Raab was given it was largely not acknowledged or consolidated in those present that arguments had been advanced.

So we see that people often confuse themselves via tracking multiple different reactions, discussions and so forth in these debates. Bear this in mind for QT then multiply it up: Remember most of what the public rely on for the facts, as per the questioner is from the legacy-news media. They in turn provide information or forums such as BBC's Question time for large group sizes as was discussed previously: When to Attend/Hold Meetings. The type of communication possible is inevitably going to be of a qualitative difference.

There's a couple of things to say about this in summary:-

• Organizational barriers to productive communication at scale
• Lack of practice of actually doing this!!

When we come back to that question of democracy, Representative Democracy in the UK could be summed up by Martin Amis' quote about marriages paraphrased for our representative democracy:-

“After a while, representative democracy is a sibling relationship--marked by occasional, and rather regrettable, episodes of incest.”

Our "occasional, and rather regrettable, episodes of incest" is the attitude I've been trying to find to describe the ubiquitous response of the Establishment Class to our infrequent representative democracy holding actual elections that matter: "Get It Out Of The Way!" unlike the periodic 5 years of musical chairs between party machines involved in their own private and regrettable bouts of incest aka The Westminster/SW1 Bubble Effect.

This brings us onto the other side of the problem. The end point is effective communication at scale to people BEFORE they vote and with time to think and consider for themselves and indeed talk with each other!

I've been blogging since the Autumn and pass the 90 posts mark. If I have learnt something, it's that working out how to learn and know more about this issue in order to increase public information works like this:-

 How can we improve democracy? By making better decision-making

 We have several levels:-

1. Logistical collection of information
2. Semantic ordering of information
3. Organizing of information into knowledge systems
4. Contextual Memory Recall of communicative knowledge to decisions

 

1. Research of Information Base

 Seeing the results of this echoed today for example in BBC Question Time...

Quoting Dr. RAE North at the invaluable resource of EUReferendum.com If you were a scientific researcher looking for a fossil or "missing link" aka Transitional Fossil this is the sort of "find" that you might be frothing at the mouth at!! Here we have the example of a major political party and how in it's inception it was built with some ideologies. Somewhere the imperative during it's "evolution" to acquire power to effect ideology is transitioned to acquire power to acquire more power... to eventually effect "something". Here is the evolutionary branch in what we now see in the Party System in our Westminster. It does seem that the Conservative Party's great success under Thatcher is also a useful comparison of a confluence of influences occassionally providing a stronger more effective government?

There's a lot of personal opinions about Donald Trump at the moment. Most reactions are to distance themselves from him and publicly denounce him. This is a short-sighted reaction: What is this? Trump is medium of  populism which suggests people want alternatives to the Establishment governments, and will pick that which makes itself visibly available irrespective of it's quality.

But we look at both ends here: Research and Communication and at both ends we see that democracy is not served effectively as a system: The result is that perpetual comment: "We don't know enough to vote."

Fascinatingly enough, during the aforementioned BBC Question Time, what did people spend a lot of time on the panel and audience discussing? Was it the subject of democracy? No. It was the personality of:-

 I don't blame nor condemn Trump: He's astute enough to know "all publicity is good publicity" for the Business of Being The Top Trump in the deck. The key is the word "publicity" - You!

 

2. Semantic Ordering (understanding) of Information

Understanding oceans of information: We need honest experts who can find the subtlest of pearls

As said there is much to learn and a lot can be learnt. But there's many examples of when you think you know something only for the wind to be taken out of your sails at an oversight, some new fact that is simple yet essential that you should have understood even when you do read and find the expert quality sources!

On the right handside EU Referendum: a Duff deal is an overview of Andrew Duff's scrutiny of David Cameron's deal. Time and again he's been helpful in explaining the workings of the EU, but he demonstrates something so many others like Hugo Dixon don't: He knows enough to have the right context and tacit knowledge around the explicit statements of what things are. Many people talk about Donald Trump or Boris Johnson, but few talk about Andrew Duff. Yet they say they want to know about Brexit and the EU and how to vote in the Referendum?

I have to kick myself, I'm sure I may have come across, probably several times, what Dr. RAE North explains in  EU Referendum: the anti-democratic Union: I ordered it somewhere did not attribute it's full context or significance ie repercussions (frequency, magnitude, structure etc) and likely forgot about it despite reading around the subject including Robert Oulds useful book! Here it is a pearl worth knowing!:-

Just reading "ever closer union" in the Treaty Rules is a good indication of what the EU is. But there's more pearls to be found if you dive for them!

 

3. Unity of Understanding with Context

Supranationalism is ordered in The Great Deception; FLEXCIT: The Market Solution provides the other concept in details via policy contexts through eg Regulations: Intergovernmentalism

All the above is intended to inform our decision-making for x1 day The day we have our say: The People's Referendum. We have almost all the pieces to know how we will vote, to quote a Kent MP's view on this:-

 

4. Communicating from a knowledge basis to people

"During the next few months, as the referendum grows ever closer, we will be bombarded by propaganda and conflicting "facts". Many will be confused and will still find it difficult to make up their mind.

To those people I would simply say is this; ignore all the complicated arguments because the the only decision you have to make is a simple one.

Do you want the laws of our land to be drafted by elected representatives who sit in a European Parliament that reflects also the views of 27 other countries> If the answer to that question is yes, then you should vote to remain.

Or, do you prefer to have the laws of our land drafted by representatives who you elect to Westminster that reflects the views only of the countries that make up the United Kingdom?

If that is your position, then vote leave. That is what I will be doing." 

~ Gordon Henderson; Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP; kentnews Week ending February 28, 2016.

It's not perfect but I think there is merit in focusing on communication that is useful to the voter, focusing on the inherent distance of democracy (even if Westminster is still distant!) involved and pointing out the inherent ambiguity and conflict of different views of x27 diverse nations (some of whom are in the pipeline for ever closer union integration of the Eurozone in the next Treaty).

 Fossilizing "Representative Democracy" driven by: Prestige, Authority, Personalities, Partisan Party Machines and Money

Looking at the present Leave Campaigns I can't help think they look like both The Establishment Parties and Populist Parties in an unhappy marriage mainly due to the barren lack of democracy as attempted to discuss here.

A more directly Real Democracy organization connecting 1-4 in sharing knowledge to people:-

 The Leave Alliance

Knowledge-driven, Real Democracy inspired: A learning campaign for people: A Pearl of an opportunity